speculation is perhaps the most powerful determinant in Nature--perhaps creating consciousness where previously only instinct existed/dominated/"determined" as the nature of animation.
i acknowledge determinants, but i refute determinism. not because i wish, but because i can will.
Speculation is only a function of organic life, it's part of causality inference, but it's not what allows for a solid understanding, empirical observation is responsible for the ultimate understanding. The universe does not speculate.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
AAAHHH!!! What is the point of arguing over this?! If somebody doesn't believe something, quit trying to make them believe it by arguing!! What's the point???
God cannot be proved by science, it just isn't going to happen. Some people can't understand having faith in something they can't see, and some people can't understand in NOT believing that there is a God. But it's wrong to try to argue somebody into believing something, not to mention stupid.
.
.
.
.
Rant over.
Because your delusional belief in this God entity and this ridiculous old book causes you to be perjudice against homosexuality. The point of view I discuss requires a mutual understanding of everyone regardless of their predispositions.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I've made the same choices, but this is not evidence of free-will, this is merely evidence of will. As you initially stated, you have "Faith" in your belief, and faith is a belief in something that has no evidence. So you've fully admitted that you cannot provide evidence for your belief. Then you are only looking to invalidate mine, because my view challenges yours, the view you are comfortable with, because it paints a nice ideal picture of reality, and if you are forced to abandon your belief in free-will, then the very foundation of your other beliefs are challenged and that is uncomfortable to you. But none of that matters, because it doesn't change reality, reality is, you don't have free-will. You choose to deny it, and it's not your free-will that causes you to make that choice, but rather your comfort levels with the two concepts. Because as you've said, I have evidence and you do not, your belief is absolute speculation and an ingorance of known truths. Now you will move on to say that nothing is absolute and attempt to invalidate all of reality in order to rationalize your beliefs.
so you figured that out sherlock? i was under the impression that we understood that days ago when this started. as i recall; you were trying to prove that my views were wrong. personally; i don't care what you believe. i've sat here and listened to your lip service for days now and i don't hear any real proof. when you get close you come up with it works because it's suppose to or something like that. well; that doesn't sound very scientific to me. neither does it's too complicated for us as humans. that response alone leads to God as the answer. i'm also sure i can go back and find 1 dodged question for every page in this thread.
yes sir; you are under the microscope here. you're the preacher trying to jam crap down our throats that we don't believe. of course you will be hit with questions that try to undermine your position. you won't change my faith so we're not debating. you are trying to prove something to the board and we are trying to tell you why we don't believe it. it's not a personal attack. not at all. we agreed that man is flawed yet you present the opinions of flawed men as evidence. then you throw in outdated greek mythology.
had you convinced anyone else here i may have a different opinion or at least look at it differently; but you've completely struck out here.
That makes no sense to me. How does the randomness of a coin toss mean the coin has free-will?
I'm not talking of a coin toss. I'm talking of randomn mutations. The basic event in darwinian evolution. Happens every second, all the time, every where in every living organism. If the mutations are random, their positions are not determined by anything. You should also check out random transpositions in our genes.
this is starting to get like the weather channel with the same old presenter.
please provide an ad break occassionally to keep us all from nodding off.
this is a paid advertisement / not sponsored by nor do it's views represent this network in any way all claims are the responsibility of the advertiser.
WAS JESUS GAY ? WHAT DOES JESUS REALLY THINK ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY ? FIND OUT EVERYTHING YOU ALWAYS WANTED TO ASK JESUS IN THIS SPECIAL EDITION 7,000 PAGE GUIDE TO UNDERSTANDING RELIGION. ORDER NOW AND WE'LL THROW IN THE WORLD RENOWNED, "WILL I GET INTO HEAVEN AND WHAT I NEED TO KNOW WHEN I ARRIVE" ABSOLUTELY FREE ? INCLUDES EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT GETTING IN TO HEAVEN AND WILL LET YOU KNOW IN ADVANCE WHETHER OR NOT YOUR IN OR NOT. A MUST HAVE FOR EVERY COLLECTION. ALL THIS IS YOURS FOR TWO LOW PAYMENTS OF 19.99 PLUS SHIPPING AND HANDLING.
Oh dear dad
Can you see me now
I am myself
Like you somehow
I'll ride the wave
Where it takes me
I'll hold the pain
Release me
I'm not talking of a coin toss. I'm talking of randomn mutations. The basic event in darwinian evolution. Happens every second, all the time, every where in every living organism. If the mutations are random, their positions are not determined by anything. You should also check out random transpositions in our genes.
They appear random. But many things appear random with limited knowledge, such as the coin-toss. I apologize for not being 2-dimensional.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
so you figured that out sherlock? i was under the impression that we understood that days ago when this started. as i recall; you were trying to prove that my views were wrong. personally; i don't care what you believe. i've sat here and listened to your lip service for days now and i don't hear any real proof. when you get close you come up with it works because it's suppose to or something like that. well; that doesn't sound very scientific to me. neither does it's too complicated for us as humans. that response alone leads to God as the answer. i'm also sure i can go back and find 1 dodged question for every page in this thread.
yes sir; you are under the microscope here. you're the preacher trying to jam crap down our throats that we don't believe. of course you will be hit with questions that try to undermine your position. you won't change my faith so we're not debating. you are trying to prove something to the board and we are trying to tell you why we don't believe it. it's not a personal attack. not at all. we agreed that man is flawed yet you present the opinions of flawed men as evidence. then you throw in outdated greek mythology.
had you convinced anyone else here i may have a different opinion or at least look at it differently; but you've completely struck out here.
Well then, you shouldn't debate any issues of morality, because your entire viewpoint is based on faith. I personally don't give a fuck what a person who bases all their beliefs on faith has to say about anything. And I have provided you with evidence, but as you said "I don't believe the evidence." and you aren't going to, because you are determined to have faith. You find comfort in it, it's quite childish and ignorant to me, but that's who you are and you can't change it.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
They appear random. But many things appear random with limited knowledge, such as the coin-toss. I apologize for not being 2-dimensional.
They also are named "random" by the same scientists you claim to be deterministics. In fact every principle in genetics is based on chance and random occurances. It's a basic principle, the first thing you learn when you study genetics. The origin of life also, the construction of the first dna molecule is believed to be an incredibly lucky strike. Can't be explained otherwise (right now). The links you keep on providing only state interpretations and predictions, no facts. If randomness is at the origin of the diversity of life then I fail to see the determinisim behind our presence. And I'll keep my free will.
Apologies accepted, though I didn't understand that part, sorry!
this is a paid advertisement / not sponsored by nor do it's views represent this network in any way all claims are the responsibility of the advertiser.
WAS JESUS GAY ? WHAT DOES JESUS REALLY THINK ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY ? FIND OUT EVERYTHING YOU ALWAYS WANTED TO ASK JESUS IN THIS SPECIAL EDITION 7,000 PAGE GUIDE TO UNDERSTANDING RELIGION. ORDER NOW AND WE'LL THROW IN THE WORLD RENOWNED, "WILL I GET INTO HEAVEN AND WHAT I NEED TO KNOW WHEN I ARRIVE" ABSOLUTELY FREE ? INCLUDES EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT GETTING IN TO HEAVEN AND WILL LET YOU KNOW IN ADVANCE WHETHER OR NOT YOUR IN OR NOT. A MUST HAVE FOR EVERY COLLECTION. ALL THIS IS YOURS FOR TWO LOW PAYMENTS OF 19.99 PLUS SHIPPING AND HANDLING.
LMAO!!!!
Phew!!! I really needed to go to the loo and get a cuppa!! Thanks for that!
I appreciate you making it louder too! Helped stir me from where my head had fallen forward onto the keyboard!!! Let me just wipe up this drool!!!
Now, where's my credit card? You got a 1800 number for me?
They also are named "random" by the same scientists you claim to be deterministics. In fact every principle in genetics is based on chance and random occurances. It's a basic principle, the first thing you learn when you study genetics. The origin of life also, the construction of the first dna molecule is believed to be an incredibly lucky strike. Can't be explained otherwise (right now). The links you keep on providing only state interpretations and predictions, no facts. If randomness is at the origin of the diversity of life then I fail to see the determinisim behind our presence. And I'll keep my free will.
Apologies accepted, though I didn't understand that part, sorry!
If you read up on randomness, you find out what random really means, it doesn't mean that things are indeterminant. For decades mathmaticians have tried to come up with something truly random and found it to be impossible. The closes anyone has come is Rule 30 automaton and it's far from being indeterminant. All "random" means is that from our macro perspective we cannot predict the outcome. A coin-toss is not indeterminant, but it is random. Quantum mechanics is random but not indeterminant. Quantum mechanics is just like the coin-toss example. Inertia alone explains the determinancy of any thing. A coin spinning cannot gain momentum by it's self, it loses momentum through inertia causing it to eventually stop at heads or tails, quantum particles do the same thing. They call it quantum indeterminacy because we can't predict which side the coin is going to land on. You've taken a poor social understanding of scientific terms and misrepresented phsyics.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Speculation is only a function of organic life, it's part of causality inference, but it's not what allows for a solid understanding, empirical observation is responsible for the ultimate understanding. The universe does not speculate.
the universe does speculate, im proof right now. and so is california in 1949, in the case that im not good enough for ya.
i concur, however; empirical observation is the key to [meaningful] knowledge, and ive yet to "see" you demonstrate any ultimate determination of Nature, yet i have "witnessed" several very intriguing cases of unimpeded-willing [hence, "free" of whatever preexisting determinates were there surrounding the circumstances of said choices]. you fail to account that "determinant-information" can be consciously disregarded. this is the greatness of humanity--being in possession of capability for originality, or creativity.
picasso was not determined to paint Guernica by any forces other than his own. was he influenced?--absolutely. was he a cog of determinism?--only if you believe in divine-God-thingy, which is essentially the christian-doctrine [do this, go to hell; dont do that, go to heaven--SHANANIGANS!].
my problem with determinism as a philosophy is orthodoxy. Nature is not orthodox, but rather requires constant, immediate spontaneity, always, for Her existing circumstances can change drastically at any moment (and in fact do, in every moment).
humanity has the power to break the circles of influence and PRE-determination.
Nietzsche speaks of the will to power--but it is the power to will which defines meaning. [i just spit that out,.. gonna need a few days to see how well it settles, but figured i'd share--thanks for the inspiration!].
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
Well then, you shouldn't debate any issues of morality, because your entire viewpoint is based on faith. I personally don't give a fuck what a person who bases all their beliefs on faith has to say about anything. And I have provided you with evidence, but as you said "I don't believe the evidence." and you aren't going to, because you are determined to have faith. You find comfort in it, it's quite childish and ignorant to me, but that's who you are and you can't change it.
i don't recall mentioning any issues regarding morality in this thread. if i did i wish you'd point them out because it was purely unintentional. i feel my posts have blended with the subject matter and i see others posting challenges to your posts. i didn't say i base my beliefs on faith; i said i have faith in my beliefs. there's a big difference. if you forgot what i base my beliefs on; re-read the last 25 pages of this thread. you seem to want me to continually repeat them and i refuse. improve your memory or re-read.
If you read up on randomness, you find out what random really means, it doesn't mean that things are indeterminant. For decades mathmaticians have tried to come up with something truly random and found it to be impossible. The closes anyone has come is Rule 30 automaton and it's far from being indeterminant. All "random" means is that from our macro perspective we cannot predict the outcome. A coin-toss is not indeterminant, but it is random. Quantum mechanics is random but not indeterminant. Quantum mechanics is just like the coin-toss example. Inertia alone explains the determinancy of any thing. A coin spinning cannot gain momentum by it's self, it loses momentum through inertia causing it to eventually stop at heads or tails, quantum particles do the same thing. They call it quantum indeterminacy because we can't predict which side the coin is going to land on. You've taken a poor social understanding of scientific terms and misrepresented phsyics.
much of science can be seen as basically founded upon some random conclusions formed in moments of necessity--ephemeral moments which have since determined much of how science has evolved. this does not have much to do with free-will or determinism, except for the scope of influence exerted by random scenarios which arose anew in the past.
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
the universe does speculate, im proof right now. and so is california in 1949, in the case that im not good enough for ya.
i concur, however; empirical observation is the key to [meaningful] knowledge, and ive yet to "see" you demonstrate any ultimate determination of Nature, yet i have "witnessed" several very intriguing cases of unimpeded-willing [hence, "free" of whatever preexisting determinates were there surrounding the circumstances of said choices]. you fail to account that "determinant-information" can be consciously disregarded. this is the greatness of humanity--being in possession of capability for originality, or creativity.
picasso was not determined to paint Guernica by any forces other than his own. was he influenced?--absolutely. was he a cog of determinism?--only if you believe in divine-God-thingy, which is essentially the christian-doctrine [do this, go to hell; dont do that, go to heaven--SHANANIGANS!].
my problem with determinism as a philosophy is orthodoxy. Nature is not orthodox, but rather requires constant, immediate spontaneity, always, for Her existing circumstances can change drastically at any moment (and in fact do, in every moment).
humanity has the power to break the circles of influence and PRE-determination.
Nietzsche speaks of the will to power--but it is the power to will which defines meaning. [i just spit that out,.. gonna need a few days to see how well it settles, but figured i'd share--thanks for the inspiration!].
You are attributing consciousness to some level of decision making which is not and has been proven by Ben Libet in 1985.
I think the problem here is that I am discussing stuff you aren't knoweldgable about, so when I say Ben Libet it means nothing to you, but to anyone that studies consicousness it says a lot.
You are going with intuition, intuitively we all feel as if we have free-will, that's the nature of the illusion. You can't expect to see the illusion as an illusion if you look through the illusion as a lense.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
this is a paid advertisement / not sponsored by nor do it's views represent this network in any way all claims are the responsibility of the advertiser.
WAS JESUS GAY ? WHAT DOES JESUS REALLY THINK ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY ? FIND OUT EVERYTHING YOU ALWAYS WANTED TO ASK JESUS IN THIS SPECIAL EDITION 7,000 PAGE GUIDE TO UNDERSTANDING RELIGION. ORDER NOW AND WE'LL THROW IN THE WORLD RENOWNED, "WILL I GET INTO HEAVEN AND WHAT I NEED TO KNOW WHEN I ARRIVE" ABSOLUTELY FREE ? INCLUDES EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT GETTING IN TO HEAVEN AND WILL LET YOU KNOW IN ADVANCE WHETHER OR NOT YOUR IN OR NOT. A MUST HAVE FOR EVERY COLLECTION. ALL THIS IS YOURS FOR TWO LOW PAYMENTS OF 19.99 PLUS SHIPPING AND HANDLING.
much of science can be seen as basically founded upon some random conclusions formed in moments of necessity--ephemeral moments which have since determined much of how science has evolved. this does not have much to do with free-will or determinism, except for the scope of influence exerted by random scenarios which arose anew in the past.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
A coin spinning cannot gain momentum by it's self, it loses momentum through inertia causing it to eventually stop at heads or tails, quantum particles do the same thing. They call it quantum indeterminacy because we can't predict which side the coin is going to land on. You've taken a poor social understanding of scientific terms and misrepresented phsyics.
So basically what you are saying is "random mutations aren't random though they are unpredictable"? I took the example of genetics because of the underlying conclusions but I never met anyone who actually thought mutations could be predetermined. Well if you are base your conclusions on facts we can't forsee for know for lack of knowledge, I'll just leave it here.
And to think I honestly thought I understood the scientific terms.
You are attributing consciousness to some level of decision making which is not and has been proven by Ben Libet in 1985.
I think the problem here is that I am discussing stuff you aren't knoweldgable about, so when I say Ben Libet it means nothing to you, but to anyone that studies consicousness it says a lot.
You are going with intuition, intuitively we all feel as if we have free-will, that's the nature of the illusion. You can't expect to see the illusion as an illusion if you look through the illusion as a lense.
you are talking about knowledge you dont have--namely of me. youre correct though, Ben Libet means nothing to me, but ill give him a look [maybe remind me tomorrow??].
again, youre positting me as a believer of free-will, whereas i am a non-believer of determinism. i refuse to base my life on faith in a higher power, because that is a childish way of dealing with the uncertainties of Nature/existence/life/chance/power. i dont care really that you do this, but it is a bit offensive to me that you attack others in the exact same manner.
furthermore, i dont know what Ben Libet's consciousness was or is, or what he argues about it. i dont like arguments, they are oppressive. i hail Art, because that is where inspiration lives, and at the end of the day nothing matters unless someone or something is moved--hence the term: "Art-work".
i study consciousness as best as i can imagine how, and that is my own. this goes back to your point about empirical-observation, of which i agree whole-heartedly with you. i have no means of emperically-proving anything anyone says about consciousness unless that proof arises in my own mind, and without external corruptions guiding the results.
im beginning to think you read too much and experiment too little, but i would never accuse you without better evidence.
anyway, work is out for the day,... CHEERS!!!
:P
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
you are talking about knowledge you dont have--namely of me. youre correct though, Ben Libet means nothing to me, but ill give him a look [maybe remind me tomorrow??].
again, youre positting me as a believer of free-will, whereas i am a non-believer of determinism. i refuse to base my life on faith in a higher power, because that is a childish way of dealing with the uncertainties of Nature/existence/life/chance/power. i dont care really that you do this, but it is a bit offensive to me that you attack others in the exact same manner.
furthermore, i dont know what Ben Libet's consciousness was or is, or what he argues about it. i dont like arguments, they are oppressive. i hail Art, because that is where inspiration lives, and at the end of the day nothing matters unless someone or something is moved--hence the term: "Art-work".
i study consciousness as best as i can imagine how, and that is my own. this goes back to your point about empirical-observation, of which i agree whole-heartedly with you. i have no means of emperically-proving anything anyone says about consciousness unless that proof arises in my own mind, and without external corruptions guiding the results.
im beginning to think you read too much and experiment too little, but i would never accuse you without better evidence.
anyway, work is out for the day,... CHEERS!!!
:P
Ben Libet was a neuroscientists that performed experiments on conscious awareness and decision making. His experiments showed that consicousness has no part in the will of a human being, but he still believed that consciousness provided free-won't. Unfortunately for Libet that argument doesn't hold any water under scrutiny.
Never-the-less Libet disproved free-will and proved that consciousness has no part in decision making, consciousness is only an awareness of prior events.
Actually if you look up free-will on wikipedia it gives all the arguments from both sides and it becomes obviosuly apparent that free-will does not exist. You can, if you are as interested as I am, go a lot deeper into physics, neuroscience and philosophy and validate this lack of free-will even further.
But again if Ben Libet doesn't mean anything then I question how much you've actually studied consciousness. Give him a read and we'll talk soon. Have fun RoM.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
So basically what you are saying is "random mutations aren't random though they are unpredictable"? I took the example of genetics because of the underlying conclusions but I never met anyone who actually thought mutations could be predetermined. Well if you are base your conclusions on facts we can't forsee for know for lack of knowledge, I'll just leave it here.
And to think I honestly thought I understood the scientific terms.
Right, and consider the coin-toss example. Originally the results were considered to be truly random, but as we learned about physics, it became apparent that the results are truly determined, however, unpredictable. You may want to look up chaos theory as well and how it relates to weather forcasting, as weather is quite unpredictable, yet climatologists still manage to be correct some of the time through deterministic prediction. Hidden variables are always a problem especially for the extremely small or extremely large things we study, such as QM and Cosmology. But even cosmologists recognize determinism and hence why both Einstein and Hawking made statements to that effect.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Now I ask to the theists that don't like darwin's theory and claim that such complicated things could not be the result of chance, how then can we argue that the complexity of our thoughts, or our will, is the result of chance?
As a footnote, there is nothing random about evolution.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
see one of my earlier posts to onelongsong. i answered your question even before you said it in this post. my studies go beyond the Bible just so you know, even though you clearly assumed you knew all of my background. clearly you have a hard time with my beliefs of the Bible and that is fine with me. you don't believe me, so be it. why would i expect you to believe me when you don't believe Jesus.
actually, please point me to where you discussed your background... I looked through this thread and can't seem to find it. Although this thread has ballooned to many pages by now I may have overlooked it.
God's way is perfect. i don't try to assume my knowledge is above God's. the Bible is the way it is for a reason. human beings have a relationship with God if they want one. if they don't want one, they won't have it. if you deny Him, He'll deny you. it's as easy as that. some religions do put their own spin on it. look up my post to onelongsong about the catholic church.
you are avoiding the point I was making... you say the Bible is the way it is for a reason... and you seem to agree HUMANS wrote it(who are flawed) but you also say you believe God is perfect and the Bible is his EXACT words... is it me or doesn't that make sense? If I gather all that you said, you're saying God is perfect... let humans write his EXACT words (which we know becomes imperfect then because humans have flaws) so essentially the Bible is flawed but God wanted it that way because the Bible is the way it is for a reason... soooo then, God intentionally wanted his EXACT words to be portrayed incorrectly...(so essentially you are saying in a round about way they aren't his exact words??!?) I look forward to you trying to explain all this to me but I suspect it will be more verses from the Bible or more "It is His way and I... blah blah)
Now I ask to the theists that don't like darwin's theory and claim that such complicated things could not be the result of chance, how then can we argue that the complexity of our thoughts, or our will, is the result of chance?
As a footnote, there is nothing random about evolution.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
Speculation is only a function of organic life, it's part of causality inference, but it's not what allows for a solid understanding, empirical observation is responsible for the ultimate understanding. The universe does not speculate.
Because your delusional belief in this God entity and this ridiculous old book causes you to be perjudice against homosexuality. The point of view I discuss requires a mutual understanding of everyone regardless of their predispositions.
so you figured that out sherlock? i was under the impression that we understood that days ago when this started. as i recall; you were trying to prove that my views were wrong. personally; i don't care what you believe. i've sat here and listened to your lip service for days now and i don't hear any real proof. when you get close you come up with it works because it's suppose to or something like that. well; that doesn't sound very scientific to me. neither does it's too complicated for us as humans. that response alone leads to God as the answer. i'm also sure i can go back and find 1 dodged question for every page in this thread.
yes sir; you are under the microscope here. you're the preacher trying to jam crap down our throats that we don't believe. of course you will be hit with questions that try to undermine your position. you won't change my faith so we're not debating. you are trying to prove something to the board and we are trying to tell you why we don't believe it. it's not a personal attack. not at all. we agreed that man is flawed yet you present the opinions of flawed men as evidence. then you throw in outdated greek mythology.
had you convinced anyone else here i may have a different opinion or at least look at it differently; but you've completely struck out here.
I'm not talking of a coin toss. I'm talking of randomn mutations. The basic event in darwinian evolution. Happens every second, all the time, every where in every living organism. If the mutations are random, their positions are not determined by anything. You should also check out random transpositions in our genes.
WAS JESUS GAY ? WHAT DOES JESUS REALLY THINK ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY ? FIND OUT EVERYTHING YOU ALWAYS WANTED TO ASK JESUS IN THIS SPECIAL EDITION 7,000 PAGE GUIDE TO UNDERSTANDING RELIGION. ORDER NOW AND WE'LL THROW IN THE WORLD RENOWNED, "WILL I GET INTO HEAVEN AND WHAT I NEED TO KNOW WHEN I ARRIVE" ABSOLUTELY FREE ? INCLUDES EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT GETTING IN TO HEAVEN AND WILL LET YOU KNOW IN ADVANCE WHETHER OR NOT YOUR IN OR NOT. A MUST HAVE FOR EVERY COLLECTION. ALL THIS IS YOURS FOR TWO LOW PAYMENTS OF 19.99 PLUS SHIPPING AND HANDLING.
Can you see me now
I am myself
Like you somehow
I'll ride the wave
Where it takes me
I'll hold the pain
Release me
They appear random. But many things appear random with limited knowledge, such as the coin-toss. I apologize for not being 2-dimensional.
Well then, you shouldn't debate any issues of morality, because your entire viewpoint is based on faith. I personally don't give a fuck what a person who bases all their beliefs on faith has to say about anything. And I have provided you with evidence, but as you said "I don't believe the evidence." and you aren't going to, because you are determined to have faith. You find comfort in it, it's quite childish and ignorant to me, but that's who you are and you can't change it.
They also are named "random" by the same scientists you claim to be deterministics. In fact every principle in genetics is based on chance and random occurances. It's a basic principle, the first thing you learn when you study genetics. The origin of life also, the construction of the first dna molecule is believed to be an incredibly lucky strike. Can't be explained otherwise (right now). The links you keep on providing only state interpretations and predictions, no facts. If randomness is at the origin of the diversity of life then I fail to see the determinisim behind our presence. And I'll keep my free will.
Apologies accepted, though I didn't understand that part, sorry!
LMAO!!!!
Phew!!! I really needed to go to the loo and get a cuppa!! Thanks for that!
I appreciate you making it louder too! Helped stir me from where my head had fallen forward onto the keyboard!!!
Now, where's my credit card? You got a 1800 number for me?
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
If you read up on randomness, you find out what random really means, it doesn't mean that things are indeterminant. For decades mathmaticians have tried to come up with something truly random and found it to be impossible. The closes anyone has come is Rule 30 automaton and it's far from being indeterminant. All "random" means is that from our macro perspective we cannot predict the outcome. A coin-toss is not indeterminant, but it is random. Quantum mechanics is random but not indeterminant. Quantum mechanics is just like the coin-toss example. Inertia alone explains the determinancy of any thing. A coin spinning cannot gain momentum by it's self, it loses momentum through inertia causing it to eventually stop at heads or tails, quantum particles do the same thing. They call it quantum indeterminacy because we can't predict which side the coin is going to land on. You've taken a poor social understanding of scientific terms and misrepresented phsyics.
the universe does speculate, im proof right now. and so is california in 1949, in the case that im not good enough for ya.
i concur, however; empirical observation is the key to [meaningful] knowledge, and ive yet to "see" you demonstrate any ultimate determination of Nature, yet i have "witnessed" several very intriguing cases of unimpeded-willing [hence, "free" of whatever preexisting determinates were there surrounding the circumstances of said choices]. you fail to account that "determinant-information" can be consciously disregarded. this is the greatness of humanity--being in possession of capability for originality, or creativity.
picasso was not determined to paint Guernica by any forces other than his own. was he influenced?--absolutely. was he a cog of determinism?--only if you believe in divine-God-thingy, which is essentially the christian-doctrine [do this, go to hell; dont do that, go to heaven--SHANANIGANS!].
my problem with determinism as a philosophy is orthodoxy. Nature is not orthodox, but rather requires constant, immediate spontaneity, always, for Her existing circumstances can change drastically at any moment (and in fact do, in every moment).
humanity has the power to break the circles of influence and PRE-determination.
Nietzsche speaks of the will to power--but it is the power to will which defines meaning. [i just spit that out,.. gonna need a few days to see how well it settles, but figured i'd share--thanks for the inspiration!].
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
i don't recall mentioning any issues regarding morality in this thread. if i did i wish you'd point them out because it was purely unintentional. i feel my posts have blended with the subject matter and i see others posting challenges to your posts. i didn't say i base my beliefs on faith; i said i have faith in my beliefs. there's a big difference. if you forgot what i base my beliefs on; re-read the last 25 pages of this thread. you seem to want me to continually repeat them and i refuse. improve your memory or re-read.
http://www.moma.org/collection/printable_view.php?object_id=78990
much of science can be seen as basically founded upon some random conclusions formed in moments of necessity--ephemeral moments which have since determined much of how science has evolved. this does not have much to do with free-will or determinism, except for the scope of influence exerted by random scenarios which arose anew in the past.
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
You are attributing consciousness to some level of decision making which is not and has been proven by Ben Libet in 1985.
I think the problem here is that I am discussing stuff you aren't knoweldgable about, so when I say Ben Libet it means nothing to you, but to anyone that studies consicousness it says a lot.
You are going with intuition, intuitively we all feel as if we have free-will, that's the nature of the illusion. You can't expect to see the illusion as an illusion if you look through the illusion as a lense.
i like you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random#Randomness_versus_unpredictability
So basically what you are saying is "random mutations aren't random though they are unpredictable"? I took the example of genetics because of the underlying conclusions but I never met anyone who actually thought mutations could be predetermined. Well if you are base your conclusions on facts we can't forsee for know for lack of knowledge, I'll just leave it here.
And to think I honestly thought I understood the scientific terms.
you are talking about knowledge you dont have--namely of me. youre correct though, Ben Libet means nothing to me, but ill give him a look [maybe remind me tomorrow??].
again, youre positting me as a believer of free-will, whereas i am a non-believer of determinism. i refuse to base my life on faith in a higher power, because that is a childish way of dealing with the uncertainties of Nature/existence/life/chance/power. i dont care really that you do this, but it is a bit offensive to me that you attack others in the exact same manner.
furthermore, i dont know what Ben Libet's consciousness was or is, or what he argues about it. i dont like arguments, they are oppressive. i hail Art, because that is where inspiration lives, and at the end of the day nothing matters unless someone or something is moved--hence the term: "Art-work".
i study consciousness as best as i can imagine how, and that is my own. this goes back to your point about empirical-observation, of which i agree whole-heartedly with you. i have no means of emperically-proving anything anyone says about consciousness unless that proof arises in my own mind, and without external corruptions guiding the results.
im beginning to think you read too much and experiment too little, but i would never accuse you without better evidence.
anyway, work is out for the day,... CHEERS!!!
:P
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
nice. thanks.
i had fun chatting today. hopefully tomorrow is dead slow again so i can participate.
peace,
-trae.
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
have a good evening. i won't be back until monday but hope to see you then.
peace
The Sentence Above Is False
Ben Libet was a neuroscientists that performed experiments on conscious awareness and decision making. His experiments showed that consicousness has no part in the will of a human being, but he still believed that consciousness provided free-won't. Unfortunately for Libet that argument doesn't hold any water under scrutiny.
Never-the-less Libet disproved free-will and proved that consciousness has no part in decision making, consciousness is only an awareness of prior events.
Actually if you look up free-will on wikipedia it gives all the arguments from both sides and it becomes obviosuly apparent that free-will does not exist. You can, if you are as interested as I am, go a lot deeper into physics, neuroscience and philosophy and validate this lack of free-will even further.
But again if Ben Libet doesn't mean anything then I question how much you've actually studied consciousness. Give him a read and we'll talk soon. Have fun RoM.
Right, and consider the coin-toss example. Originally the results were considered to be truly random, but as we learned about physics, it became apparent that the results are truly determined, however, unpredictable. You may want to look up chaos theory as well and how it relates to weather forcasting, as weather is quite unpredictable, yet climatologists still manage to be correct some of the time through deterministic prediction. Hidden variables are always a problem especially for the extremely small or extremely large things we study, such as QM and Cosmology. But even cosmologists recognize determinism and hence why both Einstein and Hawking made statements to that effect.
As a footnote, there is nothing random about evolution.
actually, please point me to where you discussed your background... I looked through this thread and can't seem to find it. Although this thread has ballooned to many pages by now I may have overlooked it.
you are avoiding the point I was making... you say the Bible is the way it is for a reason... and you seem to agree HUMANS wrote it(who are flawed) but you also say you believe God is perfect and the Bible is his EXACT words... is it me or doesn't that make sense? If I gather all that you said, you're saying God is perfect... let humans write his EXACT words (which we know becomes imperfect then because humans have flaws) so essentially the Bible is flawed but God wanted it that way because the Bible is the way it is for a reason... soooo then, God intentionally wanted his EXACT words to be portrayed incorrectly...(so essentially you are saying in a round about way they aren't his exact words??!?) I look forward to you trying to explain all this to me but I suspect it will be more verses from the Bible or more "It is His way and I... blah blah)
I wouldn't say I like you... but I don't dislike you. uuuhhhh... I need a drink
The Sentence Above Is False
evolution is Gods work.
Which God?
the only one.
There are billions of different Gods, which one?
changing horses again? first you say there isn't a God; now you say there's billions. there's one God with many different names.